Like this:

Related

One comment on “Latham redux”

Call me old-fashioned, but I cannot understand how Howard, and the Howardistas in his wake – as per FBS Akerman on Insiders today – could possibly conclude that Latham’s article was evidence that the a Rudd-led government would somehow “change it all”, as per Garrett bon mot.

The two are unrelated. Latham is not a member of the putative Labor government any more than Malcolm Fraser is a spokesman for the current Coalition government. The article was equally as critical of Labor as it was of Liberals. It could have once been written by someone like Paul Kelly (not now though, tsk tsk, it is sad…). And the inference Howard tries to shoehorn into the article is primitive and laughable. I am sure Howard himself hadn’t read it, and it is a pity nobody asked him if he did. I think it is time the meeja started to call the bluff on all of those sprays. Come on, ladies and gents of the press, you owe it to your readers. No wonder the blogs are doing roaring trade.

Hiowever, what it is evidence of is that Howard’s lines are now being written by low-rent, provincial radio copywriters; it seems that most spin brains have followed Sinodinis out the door and Loughnane must be out to lunch.

In any case, why do they think that a rather academic opinion piece, if provocative, granted, about general philosophy of politics in Australia, and probably read by about 15,000 people all up, most of them AB+ demogs, would get Howard traction in Howard battler land in southern Queensland and western Sydney marginals.